Define ‘Islamist’ and please be specific

April 9, 2013 By 4 Comments

Last week, the people who produce the Associated Press Stylebook issued a few revisions. One of them was for the term “Islamist.” It used to read:

Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

That entry was only added last year. In response, the Council on American-Islamic Relations actually called for the AP to drop the use of the term. GetReligion authors have long spoken out against the use of the term as imprecise shorthand for “Muslims who are not liberal.” Here’s tmatt banging that drum in a piece from last year “Define Islamist: Give Three Examples“:

I’ve read this story several times and, to me, it seems that it is impossible to make any sense out of it without a working definition of “Islamist.” The problem is that the story does not contain a definition. It is also missing a clear set of facts about what Islamists say they believe or what changes in Egyptian society they are seeking.

Thus, “Islamist” is left as a kind of buzz word that, essentially, means “really religious Muslims who are competing against liberals and leftists.” We also know that they are clashing with the troubled land’s predominately secular (whatever that means in an Islamic nation) military leaders.

So correct me if I’m wrong, tmatt, but you have to think the revision to the Stylebook is a step in the right direction. Here’s how it reads now:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

An improvement, certainly. In addition to being specific about the group affiliations, though, what we really need are specifics about the doctrines in play.

I do have one thought about this term, which is that I do think it builds in some bias about what makes for the “right” kind of Islam. It is common for folks to assume a sort of universality to whatever environment they grew up in. There is an attempt by some media professionals to try to understand Islam in terms of how Christians or Jews (or secular or other folks living under the influence of legal systems heavily influenced by same) order their public and private lives. This leads to an impoverished view of Islam that downplays the lack of distinction between mosque and state.

One of the reasons why this revision is good is because it shows how many different Muslims — and certainly not just radicals — advocate reordering society in accordance with sharia. But one of the reasons why the revision is lacking is because it makes it seem like this is not necessarily inherent to Islam. If one is going to take sides on that doctrinal debate, I think there’s at least a strong argument to be made that what we call “Islamism” might  be more accurately called “Islam.”

I’m not arguing that journalists should take sides on the debate but recognize how we frame adherence to Muslim teachings. And once that realization is made — that Islam isn’t just a different regional version of Christianity or Judaism — and that it has particular and unique approaches to how religion and politics blend — then we can have a more meaningful discussion about how different groups interpret that central tenet of Islam. Otherwise, we only talk about it when it appears in a negative light or is perpetuated by the guys that are portrayed as the really bad guys.

So even more important than getting the affiliations spelled out, let’s make sure we talk about the doctrines in play and how they are interpreted by various groups.

I was reminded to write about this Stylebook issue because of an AP story I read this weekend headlined “Hamas shaves heads of Gaza youths with long hair.”

Note, no “Islamist.”

Instead we learned of “Islamic militants latest attempt to impose their hardline version of Islam on Gaza.” Early on:

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Islam, Journalism, Politics, Religion, Uncategorized, World Tagged With: , , , , , , 4 Comments

WWROD: So is atheism a belief system or not?

April 3, 2013 By 4 Comments

It’s time for another GetReligion visit to the online domain of the Ridgewood Religion Guy, as in the weblog of former Time and Associated Press religion-beat maestro Richard Ostling.

This time around, he’s digging into a classic question from the church-state wars of the past few decades, care of a reader named Tyler:

Should atheism be viewed as a religion? Do atheists view themselves as being part of a religious group?

The minute I read that question I thought of a scene in one of my all-time favorite episodes of “Northern Exposure,” called “Seoul Mates (check out the “may your dog talk” clip).”

That was the Christmas story in year three that focused on the cultural and personal roots of faith. At one point, the town’s crusty old storekeeper informs the Jewish Dr. Joel Fleischman that, while everyone else in town seems to really dig the Native American Raven pageant at Christmas time, she remains an atheist (though she retains a belief in a female divine force of some kind that has never taken human form). The doctor replies, as I recall the quote: I’ve always admired people who are atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.

There’s a similar line, if I recall, in “Hannah and Her Sisters,” the part where the Woody Allen character faces his own mortality and begins to doubt his doubts. Right?

Anyway, Ostling replies that the key question is:

… What is “religion”? The American College Dictionary says it’s “the quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases: the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or worldview relating the quest to the environing universe.” Say what? No personal Deity there, and no not-quite-personal Supreme Being, either. Under that understanding, a devout atheist can be “religious” in the sense of holding convictions about moral duties, ultimate reality in the cosmos, and humanity’s involvement with all that. …

Atheists themselves don’t buy it, judging from a characteristic put-down posted on a movement Website: “For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. … Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don’t care that what they are saying really doesn’t make any sense.”

The Associated Press Stylebook advises, “in general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.” Following that valid principle with atheists, the apparent answers to Tyler are no, and no.

But there are some interesting complications, notes Ostling.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Atheists & Agnostics, Godbeat, Religion, Web/Tech Tagged With: , , , 4 Comments

The Air Force, faith and a very dangerous ‘f-word’

August 24, 2012 By

If anyone is interested, here is an short update on GetReligion’s recent move to Patheos. The RSS feeds seem to be working for the vast majority of users. We are still trying to get some art issues — past and present — worked out. A few tweaks continue, thanks to the patient Patheos staff. Some people think we have moved to a liberal site. Some people think we have moved to a conservative site.

Par for the course. Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?

At least once a day, I have found myself wondering to what degree I need to take into account the fact legions of new readers have not followed the six million words or so published on this blog since 2004. There’s quite a bit of history here, including some insider lingo and subjects that are so familiar that we rarely pause to explain them.

Now then, what we have here (a phrase I use quite a bit, actually) is a perfect example of one of the white stags that we have been hunting for a long time. Yes, your GetReligionistas dream of a day when many mainstream journalists will repent of their sins and decide to heed the following wisdom from the pages of the news bible known as The Associated Press Stylebook:

“fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

“In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”

This leads us directly to an oh-so-familiar passage in an NBC News report that, online, ran under the strange headline, “Air Force rules limit size of tattoos, role of gospel.”

So is that the role of the Christian Gospel among inked-up folks or are we talking about the gospel of tattooing? Or neither?

Whatever. This is another update from the religion wars in the U.S. military, a zone in which some evangelical officers do not seem to know how to take no for an answer, when starting discussions of faith, and some activists on the secular left seem to be seriously uncomfortable with equal-access laws and other traces of First Amendment rights among people in uniform (please note the word “traces” in that sentence).

Thus the lede:

Just days before retiring as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Norton Schwartz issued a document designed to dictate the conduct of U.S. airmen worldwide — all violations enforceable by military law. For the first time, amid regulations on tattoo size and flag handling etiquette, it laid down the law on religious proselytizing by leaders: Don’t do it.

Section 2.11 of the 27-page Air Force Instruction AFI 1-1 Standards of Conduct is the latest salvo in a battle over religious bias and Christian proselytizing in the military branch. It calls on officers and supervisors to “avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Now, if you care about church-state issues, the first thing that pops into mind is the following question: What does “proselytizing” mean?

Well, the story never tells us, which is a big problem. The definitions that can be found with a few clicks of a mouse tell us that this is a word that transcends doctrine and, amazingly enough, even religion.

pros·e·ly·tize …

1. To induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one’s own political party or to espouse one’s doctrine. … To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

So what is going on here, according to NBC? What does the word “proselytize” mean in this news report? Sure enough, a timely usage of the “f-word” tells us pretty much what we need to know.

As in U.S. public institutions more broadly, there has been a long string of battles between those in the military who want to root out religious content and others, mainly fundamentalist Christians, who argue that to do so impinges on religious freedom.

The conflicts have arisen over military leadership promoting Christian religious meetings through official channels, military courses incorporating Biblical material in coursework, officers trying to convert non-Christians and allegedly favoring “born again” Christians and using Christian doctrine and imagery in logos and official military materials and Christian prayer in official events.

The military has been sued for using Christian doctrine to recruit new members, and pressured to change logos and review course materials that incorporate Christian doctrine, and more recently, those that are anti-Islam. In 2006, after complaints by non-Christians that they were being pressured by evangelicals to convert, the Air Force issued guidelines cautioning superiors from pressing their personal religious views on subordinates. But months later they eased the guidelines after Christian conservatives argued that the guidelines restricted freedom of religion.

In this context, it is almost impossible to figure out what the word “fundamentalist” is supposed to mean. Apparently, in the world of NBC News, Christian doctrines about spreading the faith only apply to the world of Protestant Christianity defined by the Fundamentals of the Faith documents in the early 20th Century.

Please do not misunderstand: There is a serious story here and, based on the reading I have done, there are evangelicals in the Air Force who have abused their powers in the name of evangelism. But there were others who did not, yet appear to have been targeted as wrongdoers.

The key, for journalists, is to connect “faith to facts.” Readers need to know what the words mean and, most of all, they need one or two examples of behaviors that have been ruled out of bounds and those that have not. Like what?

It is wrong for an evangelical officer (or a pagan officer) to do ________.

It is not wrong for an evangelical officer (or a pagan officer) to do ________.

If an active Orthodox Jew invites a secular Jew to a Seder, is that “proselytizing”? If a gay Episcopalian, a chaplain, invites a conservative Anglican of a lower rank, also a chaplain, to a workshop on healing homophobia, is that “proselytizing”?

Like I said, this is a serious story and, when reporting hot-button stories of this kind, it is crucial that reporters talk to informed, qualified voices on both sides of the issues (and some of the folks in the middle, on this one). NBC News did not do that. No way.

Which explains that non-journalistic use of a dangerous “f-word.”

Filed Under: Creeping Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Journalism, Politics, Religion

A gunman’s shout: ‘I am opposed to social conservatism!’

August 16, 2012 By

Long ago, before the cooling of the earth’s crust, I took my first news copy-editing class as a young journalism student at Baylor University. Anyone who has worked as a copy editor know that one of the first things you learn is how to keep bad stuff out of print.

There are various kinds of bad stuff, of course.

There’s stuff that violates the principles found in the bible of daily journalism, the Associated Press Stylebook. Take that rule governing the use of the word “fundamentalist,” for example. There’s stuff that’s just plain bad, such as risque puns (think back page of The Columbia Journalism Review). There’s stuff that violates style principles that have been developed at the local level. For example, what do you call a person who lives in Charlotte, N.C.? Hint, this person is not a “Charlatan.” She or he is a “Charlottean.”

Finally, there is stuff that is considered “bad” by your local publisher or your editors — even if they do not want to admit it. Some of these concerns are valid. Some are a bit harder to live with.

There was a legendary story in Texas about a reporter at a newspaper that, for a long time, kept it’s policy forbidding any use of the word “rape” in stories. This reporter heard a woman at a crime scene shouting, “I was raped! I was raped!” Well, as the story goes, the editor spiked the quote. Thus, in anger, the reporter wrote — in warped loyalty to local style — that the woman had shouted, “I was sexual molested! I was sexually molested!” A copy editor left it in. Both, according to the legend, were fired.

So why do I bring this up? I recalled this anecdote while reading the top of The Washington Post report on the shooting at the Family Research Council. This particular story — after hours of work catching up on the event — is actually pretty good, but has some strange quirks.

Maybe it’s just me, but there was a strange void at the very top of this:

An armed intruder, spouting opposition to social conservatism, walked into the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council on Wednesday and shot a security guard before the wounded guard and others wrestled him to the floor and subdued him until police arrived, authorities said.

They identified the suspect as Floyd Lee Corkins II, 28, of Herndon, who has a master’s degree from George Mason University’s College of Education and Human Development. Corkins was in FBI custody Wednesday night; authorities had not filed charges against him.

Now, I understand that the authorities have almost certainly clamped down on witnesses talking to the press. Still, let me ask the obvious: What does “spouting opposition to social conservatism” mean? Surely this gunman didn’t walk in there shouting, “I am opposed to social conservatism! I am opposed to social conservatism!” Were his words a bit more pointed than that? Will Post editors print them?

Journalism is all about the quest for specifics, for telling details. Thus, it is rather strange that the Post team went rather far into this story before mentioning this colorful fact about this event:

Two law enforcement officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the gunman entered the lobby carrying a satchel, with a bag from a Chick-fil-A restaurant inside. The Atlanta-based fast-food chain has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks after its president spoke out against same-sex marriage. The Family Research Council also opposes such unions. …

Corkins had been volunteering at a community center on U Street NW for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, according to officials there.

So what was Corkins shouting? Think about this in journalism terms: If a gunman who was a volunteer at a fundamentalist Christian church had walked into the lobby of a major gay-rights organization, with an empty Oreos bag stashed away on his person, would reporters want that info right up top in the report? Would they want to include the actual words that this firebrand was shouting?

I would think so. I certainly would want those details reported accurately and fairly — in the lede or soon after.

The Post story, meanwhile, did a fine job of getting informed and accurate reaction quotes and commentary from people on the cultural left and right. Gay-rights leaders were quick to reject this use of violence and conservatives were given a chance to offer their opinions on the question of whether this attack was a political crime, or even a “hate crime,” under the laws of the District of Columbia. Like I said, there’s lots of good daily journalism in this piece.

But the top of the story? Rather vague and mushy — especially since there was crucial info stuck (some would say “buried”) further down. I mean, which is more relevant to this story? That Corkins had a master’s degree from George Mason University or that he was a volunteer in an organization that totally opposed the Family Research Council?

Meanwhile, if you are interested in the political and cultural overtones of the arguments about the media coverage of the shooting, let me recommend this article by religion-beat pro David Sessions at The Daily Beast. It has that whole Newsweek/Daily Beast progressive-tone thing going on, but contains tons of links and good info.

Also, check out this early piece by Timothy Dalrymple, the Harvard guy who leads the Patheos evangelical channel. He is also a major player in assembling the website’s new religion and politics channel, which is the new home for your GetReligionistas.

Filed Under: Creeping Fundamentalism, Journalism, Marriage & family, Religion, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues

Splitting the Catholic labels really fine

May 21, 2012 By

It’s one thing to try to drag political labels over into religion coverage. That’s inevitable, I guess, in this highly politicized world in which we live today.

It’s something else to use terms that are so vague that they have no meaning and to use them over and over and over without providing the kind of factual context that allows readers to figure out what the words might mean.

This is something different than the journalistic sin that takes place when reporters and editors give “fundamentalist” — a word that has a perfectly good historical meaning, one even recognized in the Associated Press Stylebook — some kind of vague and inaccurate new meaning. And I’m talking about something different than using “Islamist” all the time without providing a consistent definition.

To be specific, I’m talking about that beloved weasel word “moderate” — a term so vague and, at times, slanted that it even alarmed that New York Times self-study team back in 2005 (click here for the .pdf). Do you remember this timely reminder to the newspaper’s reporters and editors?

Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist “inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme.” We often apply “religious fundamentalists,” another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.

I’m waiting for someone to be called a “moderate fundamentalist.” It’s only a matter of time.

This leads us the following strange reference in a Washington Post story about, of course, Georgetown University and its defiant invitation to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak during one of its commencement events. The key issue, of course, is the new set of HHS regulations that will require the majority of church-based institutions to include all FDA-approved forms of contraception in the health-insurance plans they offer to employees and even students. This would include, with no out-of-pocket payments, sterilizations and the contraceptives commonly known as “morning-after pills.”

Here is the reference, in context:

… (T)he archdiocese of Washington, led by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, criticized Georgetown President John J. DeGioia for remarks he issued a day earlier — apparently to address the controversy — saying DeGioia had mischaracterized the issue as being about birth control. As the region’s top Catholic official, Wuerl is responsible for making sure Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, follow church teachings.

DeGioia “does not address the real issue for concern — the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history,” reads the statement from the archdiocese, which covers the District and suburban Maryland.

The Catholic bishops have led opposition to the mandate, arguing that it violates religious freedom. Liberal and moderate Catholics and other religious advocates also opposed the mandate when it was announced in January but their opposition died down after the White House shifted the requirement from the employers to insurance companies.

No, we are not going to get into a discussion of the fact that the Post let that final sentence stand as proven fact, without any dissenting voices that are allowed to ask — for example — what happens to the many religious organizations that self-insure.

No, here’s what I want to know: What, precisely, is the difference between a “liberal” Catholic and a “moderate” Catholic in this context?

Most of all, I would like to know the doctrinal differences between these kinds of Catholics, two groups of Catholics whose identities are so established that the Post does not even need to hint at who is who and what is what. Since the story mentions that orthodoxy on “church teachings” plays a role in this drama, we must assume that there are doctrinal — not merely political — issues at stake.

So, what are they? So, GetReligion readers, what are the doctrinal differences between “moderate” and “liberal” Catholics?

Discuss, but be nice and look at this in terms that journalists can use in news reports.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, Politics, Same-sex marriage, Social Issues, Worship

Fundamentalist Catholics forfeit baseball game

May 11, 2012 By

A few readers sent along an interesting story about a Catholic school in Arizona that defaulted rather than play a co-ed baseball team. It reminds me a bit of the New York Times story about the all-girl prom at Hamtramck High School. Both are stories about religion, while the all-girl prom was done for Muslim sensibilities.

Here’s the Associated Press lede:

PHOENIX — Instead of playing in a championship baseball game, Paige Sultzbach and her team won’t even make it to the dugout.

A Phoenix school that was scheduled to play the 15-year-old Mesa girl and her male teammates forfeited the game rather than face a female player.

Our Lady of Sorrows bowed out of Thursday night’s game against Mesa Preparatory Academy in the Arizona Charter Athletic Association championship. The game had been scheduled at Phoenix College.

Baseball, religion, gender all make for good topics for a news story. One reader sent along two stories that he thought handled the religion angle differently. The first was the AP story above. It included this bit explaining what type of Catholics were involved:

Officials at Our Lady of Sorrows declined comment. In a written statement Thursday, the school said the decision to forfeit was consistent with a policy prohibiting co-ed sports.

The statement also said the school teaches boys respect by not placing girls in athletic competition, where “proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty.”

Our Lady of Sorrows is run by the U.S. branch of the Society of Saint Pius X. The group represents conservative, traditional priests who broke from the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

It’s a great story, made all the more provocative by playing it straight. At ESPN, the story runs with a clip from Colin Cowherd’s radio show. He uses this story as a hook to discuss how religion affects all sorts of things in sports, riffing on why Brigham Young University doesn’t get invited to some bowl games. It’s actually really interesting.

Another story, which first ran in the Arizona Republic and was picked up by USA Today, begins:

All second baseman Paige Sultzbach wanted to do was play in her school’s state championship baseball game.

But because she is a girl, that won’t happen.

Sultzbach is a freshman at Mesa Preparatory Academy, which had been scheduled to play Our Lady of Sorrows Academy in Thursday’s Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship at Phoenix College.

But Our Lady of Sorrows, a fundamentalist Catholic school in Phoenix that lost twice to Mesa Prep during the regular season, chose to forfeit the championship game rather than play a team fielding a female player.

The reader who submitted this story pitched it as “the how-not-to-do-it” story. Fundamentalist, you know, is a word with a particular meaning.

Among some reporters, fundamentalist seems to mean something like “group whose views are stricter than mine.” But that’s not what the definition of fundamentalist is. Particularly when doing journalism as opposed to punditry. As the Associated Press Stylebook puts it (once again):

fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.

In any case, we have some good journalism being done on this story. Even the Arizona Republic piece goes on to provide more details, rather than labels, about the beliefs of the boys who forfeited the game:

Our Lady of Sorrows is run by the U.S. branch of the Society of Saint Pius X, a group of conservative, traditionalist priests who disagree with the reforms of the Vatican II Council in the 1960s and broke with the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

So some hits and some misses in this coverage.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Journalism, Sports

Is Oikos school Catholic? Fundamentalist? Neither?

April 3, 2012 By

A horrible shooting happened yesterday at a small Christian vocational school in Oakland, California. A former student went on a shooting rampage, killing seven people and injuring three.

Whenever violent acts such as this take place, reporting the details is difficult. Nevertheless, journalists immediately have to start trying to piece together accurate information about the alleged killer, the small school and the affected community.

The school, according to news reports, caters to Korean immigrants and provides some type of vocational training in nursing, music and theology. The school, called Oikos University, has been repeatedly identified as Christian. OK, but what brand of Christianity are we talking about?

Here’s how the Telegraph reported its denominational affiliation:

Terrified students at the Catholic Oikos University were forced to cower in their classrooms and local businesses were evacuated as the police hunted for the suspect, an Asian man in his forties, described as heavy-set and wearing khaki clothing.

Interesting. Catholic. And here’s how the Huffington Post describes the same school:

On its website, several detailed pages are dedicated to describing the university’s fundamentalist Christian roots and its founders beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible, which they say should be read literally.

Hunh. Fundamentalist. Interesting.

The Telegraph doesn’t explain why it thought the school was Catholic and the Huffington Post doesn’t offer any other specific, detailed information about why its editors think that this school is fundamentalist. Among some reporters, fundamentalist seems to mean something like “group whose views are stricter than mine.” But that’s not what the definition of fundamentalist is. As the Associated Press Stylebook puts it (once again):

fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.

I looked on the school’s “Our Philosophy” web site and didn’t find the group describing itself as fundamentalist, explaining its roots (apart from the Korean church) or giving any hint that it seeks separation from other Christians. It does indicate that there are various things the group believes are “literal” in the Bible, including the literal fall of Adam into sin, the existence of Jesus and his death, burial, resurrection and ascension, the creation of the earth in six days and heaven and hell. It might be better to simply describe these particular things that the Korean group believes should be understood literally than to use a pejorative such as “fundamentalist” that is either inaccurate or, at the very least, not backed up by the story.

Without specific examples, I never know how helpful the phrase that the Bible “should be read literally” is when describing people’s beliefs. Presumably even Bishop John Shelby Spong thinks at least some portion of Scripture should be read literally, right? Unless a group has declared war on metaphor and allegory, describing views as “literalism” seems somewhat imprecise. Or maybe there should just be more consistency about when we mention literal interpretation, adding a modifier such as “doesn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead” or  “doesn’t believe in a literal Jesus” or “believes all of the Old Testament and most all of the New Testament is fiction and part of a patriarchal plot to control women” to groups at various other points on the Christian theological spectrum.

Anyway, the Huffington Post continues to explain the group’s separatist and fundamentalist beliefs:

The university’s religious objectives include demonstrating a “comprehensive knowledge of the Bible and an understanding of Christian doctrine,” developing “an appreciation for the Korean and Korean-American church denomination heritage” and instilling “a desire for lifelong commitment to personal spiritual growth through daily Bible study and prayer.” The university also aims to “develop attitudes of service and commitment to the local church and world missions” and “prepare students for Christian service and vocation in the Church and society.”

The school is affiliated with Praise God Korean Church in Oakland and Shepherd University of San Francisco, but little is known about either institution.

That doesn’t seem so separatist, does it? And if the group is fundamentalist (or Catholic), it is somewhat odd that it is affiliated with Korean Presbyterians. That’s how Praise God Korean Church is identified, at least.

The local Oakland Tribune took the same info and ruled that the school was espousing “evangelical Christianity,” more certain of that, in fact, than their single quoted source for the story.

The nonprofit school — where at least seven people were shot to death Monday — was founded in 2004 and espouses evangelical Christianity on its website…

“It would seem to be evangelical protestant, but doesn’t seem to have a relationship with any one denomination,” said Arthur Holder, dean and vice president for academic affairs at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley.

He had not heard of Oikos before the shootings, “but there are a lot of schools I haven’t heard of,” he said after looking at the school mission statement on its website.

We still capitalize Protestant, don’t we?

Like all stories that run quickly after a tragedy such as this, we’re seeing some errors in the first drafts. But there are some good examples of articles that incorporated religion well, including the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune. The last link, in particular, shows the benefits that come from reporting a story when you have some familiarity with a community, including its minority religious or ethnic cultures. Language, culture and religious differences between reporters and the players in a story can lead to problems but a good local paper can overcome some of those challenges.

More details are coming out about the shooter, as can be read here by the Associated Press and here at CNN. According to that last link, a memorial service for the victims will be held at a local Korean Methodist church.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Creeping Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Journalism, Mainline

No. 7,000: Please define “evangelical” — again

February 24, 2012 By

So, this post represents the 7,000th GetReligion offering that is still stashed on our server. That’s a landmark, of some sort or another, especially since this comes so soon after our 8th birthday party the other day.

There have, by the way, been quite a few GetReligion posts that were deleted along the way, primarily at the time when we made the jump to the WordPress software after about two years of publishing. You see, we once had a sidebar feature that offered shorter posts that kind of resembled the whole “aggregation” trend that is so hot these days on many news websites. I think we lost all of those in the software switch.

Cyberspace giveth, cyberspace taketh away. So be it.

When we started out it was just me and The Rt. Rev. Douglas LeBlanc who were doing the writing and the goal was to get up one or two posts a day. These days, with 5.5 scribes (give or take a Hemingway), we strive for three and sometimes four — depending on what’s going on in our real jobs and the state of religion coverage on any given day. Then there’s jet planes that take us to speaking gigs, conferences, other duties, family life, etc.

Still, 7,000 articles — at roughly 700 words or so (Wait! Father George averages about 1,400 words a post!) — is just under 5,000,000 words in seven years. That’s a lot of digital ink.

So, on what should I focus this post — No. 7,000? The topic needs to be somewhat symbolic, don’t you think?

I considered having the Divine Mrs. M.Z. Hemingway do a WomenPriests post of some kind. Did you know that if you Google “GetReligion” and “Womenpriests” you get about 24,000 hits? I have no idea what that means.

No, why don’t we throw another harpoon at one of those great-white-whale topics that we’ve been studying from the get-go? So that’s ask, once again: What in the world does the oft-abused term “evangelical” mean?

Godbeat veteran Peggy Fletcher Stack of The Salt Lake City Tribune addressed that topic the other day and gave GetReligion a tip of the hat. Click here to read the version of this Religion News Service piece that ran in USA Today. Here is how that opens:

Evangelicals have been in the news a lot lately, from the Denver Broncos’ Tim Tebow and his take-a-knee prayers to the Texas pastor and his wife who spent 24 hours in bed preaching the virtues of sex in Christian marriages.

Mitt Romney is struggling to gain evangelical support for his presidential bid, and Rick Santorum — a Catholic — won the blessing of more than 100 evangelical pastors gathered at a Texas ranch.

So who are these Christians? What do they have in common and how are they different from other believers? Even famed preacher Billy Graham wasn’t sure of the answer.

“Actually, that’s a question, I’d like to ask somebody, too,” Graham told religion reporter Terry Mattingly in a 1987 interview. “The lines (have) become blurred. … You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals and, somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals.”

So there is one of the keys. If one knows what the word “fundamentalist” means — the Associate Press Stylebook is pretty clear on that, even if journalists keep ignoring its wise advice — then the key is to draw a line between the “evangelicals” and the “fundamentalists.”

Good luck with that.

You really need to read the whole piece to see how Stack addresses that, with the help of a whole bunch of folks, including Notre Dame historian Mark Noll, author of “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” and other relevant tomes.

So here is a final bite to ponder, as she chases a definition that all will embrace:

Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, expands the definition further, saying “evangelicals have always been a cultural niche/commercial product kind of thing. No set doctrines.” …

Noll: The serious answer is the ‘eye of the beholder.’ I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, which makes me a fundamentalist in the eyes of some people, but I take an occasional glass of wine and don’t worry about evolution, which means that, for many people, I can’t be a fundamentalist.

Anyway, your GetReligionistas will carry on for, we hope, thousands of other posts — including more on this topic, I am sure. As you know, words really matter when you’re walking the religion beat.

Filed Under: Announcements, Creeping Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, First Person, Godbeat, Religion, Web/Tech